logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가합537423
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in singing business by leasing two floors of the building in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant is a person who leases one floor and operates a Chinese restaurant.

B. On March 10, 2016, around 02:06, a fire occurred in the Defendant’s Chinese restaurant, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s instant singing room (hereinafter “instant singing room”).

C. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written agreement (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant agreement”) with regard to the management of the fire accidents at issue, as follows:

1. With respect to the fire case of the building of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant agree that the defendant shall pay 9 million won to the plaintiff and conduct artificial construction within the scope of the quotation attached to the plaintiff (Evidence A2).

2. The Plaintiff did not claim damages beyond the above scope against the Defendant, and actively cooperate with the Defendant, such as submission of a written application for coal in order to reduce the Defendant’s criminal liability.

The written estimate attached to the above agreement contains items such as removal and waste treatment, installation of air conditioners, singing machines, strings, electricity, strings, carpets, pacts, pacts, pactes, signboards, and set, etc., which are listed in the written estimate attached to the above agreement, and the total construction amount of KRW 95,645,00 (including additional dues; hereinafter the same shall apply) is written, but the soundproof construction items were not separately stated.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the soundproofing construction is not separately stipulated in the written agreement of this case, but the instant singing room was equipped with soundproof facilities before the occurrence of the fire, and the original and the Defendant drafted the instant written agreement to restore the said singing room facilities damaged by fire to its original state. As such, the Defendant will be able to perform the design construction, including soundproof construction essential for the singing room business, to the Plaintiff.

arrow